posted on June 14, 2004 09:31:14 AM new
June 21 issue - Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants.
Ever since the 1970s, when Army intel agents were caught snooping on antiwar protesters, military intel agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States. But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: "Current counterterrorism operations," the report explains, which require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States." DIA officials say they mainly want the provision so they can more easily question American businessmen and college students who travel abroad. But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman concedes the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States. "It's a new world we live in," he says. "We have to do what is necessary for force protection." Among those pushing for the provision, sources say, were officials at northcom, the new Colorado-based command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to oversee "homeland defense." Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic "law enforcement." But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming "mission creep." "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night."
posted on June 14, 2004 10:43:22 AM new
If we're not careful, we're going to morph into a new version of the Soviet Union.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 14, 2004 10:48:53 AM new
Bunni - we are half way there. The foundation is laid, the laws and various changes have already been made. The funniest part is that as many have pointed out the gradual stripping of rights and such over the past year, the conservatives on this board have whole heartedly supported each and every one in the name of freedom.
It's had me baffled for awhile.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 14, 2004 11:01:45 AM new
Spying has been going on for quite some time now, not just the past year. Security has to be tight or we are all going to be blown up little bit at a time. Thank goodness there is someone out their trying to track down terriorists. Ask your self Am I Safe?
Remember the saying "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men".
posted on June 14, 2004 11:22:16 AM new
Yep. Pitiful, isn't it?
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 14, 2004 03:07:14 PM new
This is why the US cannot leave any stone unturned. Now they are starting to move into the middle of the country. Now nobody is safe.
Somali charged in al Qaeda mall bombing plot
Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 2:57 PM EDT (1857 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Somali in immigration custody in Cincinnati has been indicted in an alleged al Qaeda plot to bomb an Ohio shopping mall, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.
"Now, current credible intelligence indicates that al Qaeda wants to hit the United States, to hit the United States hard," Ashcroft said in a news conference at the Justice Department.
"We know our enemies will go to great lengths to lie in wait and to achieve the death and destruction they desire if at all possible."
Ashcroft identified the Somali as Nuradin M. Abdi, 32, who has been indicted on four charges of providing material support to al Qaeda.
Ashcroft said Abdi had a relationship with Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver convicted last year of providing material support to al Qaeda.
"It is alleged that Abdi, along with admitted al Qaeda operative Faris and other co-conspirators, initiated a plot to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall," Ashcroft said. "It is also alleged that in pursuit of this plot, Abdi received bomb-making instructions from one of those co-conspirators."
In addition to the material support and conspiracy charges, Abdi is charged with two counts of visa fraud. In one case, Abdi said he was traveling to Somalia when he went to a terrorist training camp in Ethiopia, Ashcroft said.
"Abdi's destination was Ogaden, Ethiopia, to attend a military-style training camp for violent jihad," Ashcroft said. "Abdi allegedly sought training in guns, guerrilla warfare and bombs."
No details on alleged plot
"Defendant Abdi faces a maximum of 30 years in prison on the two material support charges," he said. "The immigration and fraud charges include a terrorism enhancement that makes the maximum sentence on each count 25 years. Each count of the indictment carries a fine of up to $250,000."
Joining Ashcroft at the news conference, Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation at the Department of Homeland Security, said Abdi has been in custody since his arrest November 28 on Thanksgiving weekend.
Ashcroft declined to offer any specifics about the alleged mall bombing plot. "I think it would be inappropriate for us to go beyond the limits of the charging documents and other submissions made to the court in this case, including the detention application," he said.
"We have taken steps in the Columbus area to mitigate this threat. And we believe that the activities of local law enforcement, together with federal authorities, have addressed this matter comprehensibly and successfully."
Truck driver convicted of helping al Qaeda
Federal prosecutors said Faris checked out the chances of destroying a New York bridge and tried to buy equipment for proposed al Qaeda attacks while appearing to be a law-abiding trucker, according to documents unsealed last year in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Faris pleaded guilty in May 2003 to providing material support to al Qaeda and to conspiring to do so, according to the documents. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Sources said that al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is in U.S. custody, told his interrogators the target was the Brooklyn Bridge.
posted on June 14, 2004 04:44:14 PM new
Here's the list of both dems and reps who make up the mentioned US Sentate Select Committee on Intelligence.
But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act.
Are you, fenix and bunni, saying these democrats are also to blame also for taking away our 'rights'? Or are we once again making this an issue ONLY the republicans are approving and responsible for?
MEMBERSHIP
REPUBLICANS
DEMOCRATS
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV
West Virginia, Vice Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Carl Levin, Michigan
Mike Dewine, Ohio Dianne Feinstein, California
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Ron Wyden, Oregon Trent Lott, Mississippi Richard J. Durbin, Illinois
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Evan Bayh, Indiana Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
John Edwards, North Carolina
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland John W. Warner, Virginia
posted on June 14, 2004 04:52:21 PM new
Linda, no mention of political party was made at all. Must be some kind of guilt complex that had you jumping to that particular conclusion...
Republican, Democrat, whatever, I don't want the government prying into my life--which it is doing at an ever-increasing rate. Spy satellites that were once trained on the USSR & its activities are now being trained on American citizens. Once again the government is approaching US citizens and asking themto spy on on te=heir neighbors (this is partly what brought public disapproval down on the FBI & CIA during the 60's, you will recall, and its making a comeback).
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 14, 2004 05:38:16 PM newHere's the list of both dems and reps who make up the mentioned US Sentate Select Committee on Intelligence.
It makes no difference who the Dems are on the committee. Unless your party is in the majority, your membership on a committee is of no consequence whether you agree with the majority or not.
posted on June 14, 2004 07:41:22 PM new
Reamond I beg to differ with you. There are some very influential Democrats on that comittiee. Ones that will not follow like some people I know. They have their own minds and to say they don't, that is the inference you are making, is a disgrace to them and the democratic party. There are some distinguished people on that committee both democrats and republicans.
Bunni- There has been spying going on for quite some time. Our country has always been a target for someone, russia, Cuba, China at sometime or another. It isn't just now this is starting it is getting more hype now since the terriorists took over. US has to be one step ahead of them and if that means survalence cameras then that is fine with me.
posted on June 14, 2004 07:51:12 PM new
Linda - I believe I said conservatives on this board. I made no mention of political affiliations or of congress unless we have a few closet senators and congressmen among our Round Table ranks
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 14, 2004 07:55:23 PM new
Guilt???? at what, bunni. That I support the administration that is doing all it can to protect America? No...there's no guilt on my part.
I'm facing the reality of these times and what we're dealing with as threats. I'm dealing with the true reality that we have terrorists cells in our country....that we are an open country and there's lots of opportunities for them to make trouble here. I'm dealing with the face that we have to be flexible in these times and not tie their hands while demanding they protect us.
I'm not choosing to deal with what 'could happen' along with all the handwringing, whining, etc. that the left here seems to be stuck in all the time. And I'm able to see that members from BOTH parties are working together to prevent another 9-11.
To me it appears that the left is just incapable of realizing the true threat this country faces. Even after 9-11...even after the 9-11 Commission hearings about how our intelligence agencies hands were tied....even after what binLaden's [AQ] tapes are promising for us, they still don't 'get' it.
And even when they see so many elected democrats agreeing that certain things need to be more flexible - they blame only this administration - when it's both sides that support these measures and feel it's in our nations best interests.
Like kerry voting FOR the Patriot Act that so many here just KNEW was going to result in all these 'violations of our constitution rights'. Well I haven't heard of any to date.
We cannot tie their hands and then expect they will be able to defend our nation. We must allow them to do what is necessary to hunt down those who wish to harm our nation.
posted on June 14, 2004 08:08:18 PM new
Here is the list of members, and party affiliations, who are on the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Any names on that list that anyone's heard speaking out against the JOINTLY made decision on this issue?
This isn't only a conservative issue. And I sure wouldn't call all those democrats who are list on this committee conservatives either.
posted on June 15, 2004 12:59:34 PM new
From Leiter
Whenever the forces of darkness propose these expansions of state power to spy and pry, the bogeyman of terrorism is invoked. But let us recall that the failure to prevent the 9/11 atrocities did not result from lack of such powers, but from simple incompetence: local agents doing their job, under existing law, discovered a non-citizen fundamentalist zealot learning to fly planes, but not land them or take them off. But that crucial bit of information disappeared down a bureaucratic black hole in Washington, D.C., with horrendous consequences.
Perhaps instead of undermining the rule of law, we could just ask that those charged with national security perform their jobs competently?
